The Madhya Pradesh High Court has recently sought clarification from the state authorities regarding the operation of safari vehicles by a private resort within the Bandhavgarh Tiger Reserve. The court's inquiry focuses on whether any existing government policy or guidelines from the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) permit such operations beyond the established roster system.
This judicial scrutiny arose from a petition challenging an order dated March 1, issued by the tourism officer of the Bandhavgarh Tiger Reserve. The contested order allowed four vehicles belonging to a private resort to operate outside the NTCA-specified roster system. The petitioner, serving as the President of the Bandhavgarh Paryatan Jan Seva Samiti—a registered society—argued that this exemption violates the Madhya Pradesh Wildlife (Protection) Rules. According to these rules, tourists are permitted to visit tiger reserves only through registered vehicles that are part of the reserve's official roster system. The petition further contends that the tourism officer's decision contravenes NTCA guidelines established following the Supreme Court's directives in the case of Anuj Dubey vs. Union of India (2011), as well as the minutes from the Local Advisory Committee's meetings.
During the hearing on March 21, Justice Vivek Jain addressed the respondents, who include the Principal Secretary of the Department of Forest, the Chief Wildlife Warden & Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (Wildlife), the Chairman of the Local Advisory Committee at Bandhavgarh Tiger Reserve, the reserve's Field Director, the reserve's Tourism Officer, Vindhya Vilas Wildlife Resort, and the NTCA. Justice Jain directed these respondents to specify under which prevailing government policy or NTCA guideline the private resort's vehicles have been permitted to operate beyond the roster system. He emphasized that failure to provide a specific and satisfactory reply on this matter might compel the court to consider granting interim relief.
The petitioner's counsel highlighted that in 2011, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed to determine the carrying capacity of vehicles in all tiger reserves. This matter escalated to the Supreme Court, resulting in the issuance of various guidelines. The NTCA, as the apex body overseeing tiger conservation, formulated these guidelines to regulate tourism activities within tiger reserves, ensuring minimal disturbance to wildlife and their habitats. The counsel argued that allowing a private resort to operate its vehicles outside the established roster system undermines these guidelines and could set a concerning precedent for wildlife tourism management.
The roster system is a critical component in managing tourism within tiger reserves. It regulates the number of vehicles entering the reserve, thereby controlling human interference and preserving the natural habitat. Exemptions to this system, especially for private entities, could lead to increased vehicle traffic, heightened stress on wildlife, and potential ecological imbalance. Such actions might also encourage other private operators to seek similar exemptions, complicating the enforcement of conservation policies.
The court's intervention underscores the importance of adhering to established guidelines to balance wildlife conservation with tourism. Tiger reserves like Bandhavgarh are not only critical habitats for the endangered tiger population but also significant contributors to eco-tourism. Ensuring that tourism practices do not compromise conservation efforts is essential for the sustainability of these reserves. The High Court's demand for clarification reflects a commitment to uphold the integrity of wildlife protection laws and the guidelines set forth by authorities like the NTCA.
This case also brings to light the challenges faced in wildlife tourism management, where economic interests often intersect with conservation goals. Private resorts and tour operators play a vital role in promoting tourism and providing amenities to visitors. However, their operations must align with conservation policies to ensure that the primary objective of wildlife reserves—the protection of biodiversity—is not compromised. The outcome of this legal scrutiny could set a precedent for how tourism activities are regulated in protected areas across the country.
In conclusion, the Madhya Pradesh High Court's inquiry into the operation of a private resort's safari vehicles within the Bandhavgarh Tiger Reserve highlights the delicate balance between promoting tourism and ensuring wildlife conservation. The court's insistence on adherence to NTCA guidelines and state wildlife protection rules serves as a reminder that conservation efforts must take precedence to preserve India's rich biodiversity for future generations.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.